Do you have a sports topic that you want researched? Are you interested in my opinion on a particular subject? If so, I'd like to remind you that while I typically have a couple posts that I am either in the process of writing or researching, which can be found on the left side of the webpage in the "Queue" section, I am always open to hearing and writing about any ideas which are suggested to me.
The main purpose of this blog is to provide interesting and in-depth opinions on a variety of sports subjects. There really isn't much of a point in writing something that people aren't going to want to read, which is why I believe it is extremely valuable to have a strong connection with my audience.
In fact, it doesn't necessarily have to be an idea for a post at all. Any advice or ideas, such as a potential sport to write about instead of a specific topic, logo or blog design tips, or just things you would want to see me do more of, such as collaborations or podcasts, are greatly appreciated.
For suggestions of any kind, comment on this post, email me at cgroel64@gmail.com, or tweet @ConnorGroel.
Thanks for your feedback,
Connor
Subscribe To Top Level Sports
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label Misc.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misc.. Show all posts
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Gripes with Sports Fans: The Transitive Property of Sports
In math, there is something called the transitive property. Essentially, it means that if a and b have a relationship, and b and c share that relationship, than so will a and c. It sounds complicated, but it's really not. For example, if 3 is greater than 2, and 2 is greater than 1, than by the transitive property, 3 must be greater than 1. Or, if 1/2 equals .5, and .5 equals 50%, than 1/2 equals 50%. Some people think this transfers over to sports. However, it doesn't, and not much makes me angrier than hearing someone try to pass it off as fact.
If you're a sports fan that likes talking and debating about sports with other people, chances are you've heard this before: "My team beat this team, and that team beat your team, so my team's better than yours." Transitive property in full effect. There are two reasons why I believe some people do this. The first would be that the person is narrow-minded or simply negligent. I mean, who could really believe in such a flimsy argument? Right? Unfortunately, those people do exist. The second, and more common reason, which I hate even more, is that people use the transitive property simply to be annoying. That's it. People just want to needle by given an undeniable fact that their team did indeed beat someone who beat your team, and then try to agitate you by assigning some meaning to it. They're fully aware that it makes little actual sense, but who cares? It's an easy way to needle, and needling can be really fun for the needler.
Regardless of why the transitive property is used, I've made it my mission to debunk the myth, if you can even call it that, and crush the notion that the transitive property is an appropriate argument as thoroughly as possible, because there is so much more to determining how good teams are than simply how they played against another team.
Now, if you aren't a sports person, than you might be thinking something like this: "I'm not really sure what Connor's talking about here. It makes sense that Team A is better than Team C if Team A beat Team B which beat Team C. Right?" Well, the main problem with this argument is that as long as the two teams being compared each have wins and losses (obviously the idea can't work with winless and undefeated teams), it's basically possible to say that anybody is better than anybody through use of the transitive property.
Don't believe me? Let me introduce you to the NFL Circle of Parity, or what I like to call the Any Given Sunday Circle. Basically, the idea is that over the course of the NFL season, enough games are played so that a circle can be made of a team who beat a team who beat a team, etc. that includes every team in the league. It's proof that if you try hard enough, any team can be viewed as being better than any other team through use of the transitive property, because in the NFL, anyone can beat anyone on any given sunday. If you want a visual representation of this, here's a link to last season's circle: http://i.imgur.com/GRC6lT1.png. Keep in mind when you're looking at the graphic that what is shown is not necessarily the quickest way to connect every team in the league, but simply a way that plays allows for the best and worst teams to fit in. There were only two teams that lost to the Buccaneers, so it kind of forces teams to be in certain positions. Most of the time, that route connecting two teams is very short. For instance, while the circle shows the Dolphins beating the Patriots, the Patriots also beat the Dolphins, so instead of 31 links between the Patriots beating the Dolphins, only one is really necessary. If you're interested, a similar circle has been made for every season since 2010, and I'd imagine one can be made for every season in the 16-game era besides 2007, where the Patriots went 16-0, and 2008, where the Lions went 0-16.
Why is this possible? Just think about it. Take an 8-8 team. If you want to say they're better than another team, it's pretty simple. First off, they've beaten eight teams. Technically it could be fewer if they won two against a division opponent, but let's call it eight. If the team you want them to be better than isn't one of those eight, than you can move onto any team those eight have beaten. This should get to the desired team the vast majority of the time, because if these teams have an average 8-8 record, than it means they've beat a combined 64 teams. That means on average every team should be beaten twice on average by the eight in question, and only 23 other teams remain, since it's a 32-team league and your team and the eight they beat don't count. If you still haven't gotten there, than go to the teams these 64 have beaten. That should be about 512 wins, and the numbers just keep getting higher. I don't even think it's possible to not be able to use the transitive property if the teams in question aren't undefeated or winless. It gets slightly more difficult if a team has fewer wins, but still very much possible.
It's not just football either. I would say this is easily possible with every major team sport. For college sports fans, there is a website appropriately called http://myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/, where you can compare any two college football, men's basketball, or women's basketball teams and see the shortest path connecting the two via the transitive property. Then for extra fun you can "flip it", and show how the inferior team is actually better using its own chain of matchups. Using the website, ere's proof that arguably the worst FBS football team, 1-11 Georgia State, is actually better than the National Champions, Ohio State: http://myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/default.asp?sport=CFB&winner=Georgia+St&loser=Ohio+St&year=2014&method=2#.VX-4ZFVViko.
Okay, so it's pretty clear that the transitive property works for just about anyone, and that the larger the season and more wins a team has, the easier it is to use the transitive property. But why exactly do some teams beat strong opponents and lose to weak ones? There's tons of reasons.
Remember the card game war? If you don't, here's the basic premise. A standard deck of cards is divided evenly amongst the game's players. Then each player flips over the top card in their deck, and the player who flips over the highest card takes everyone's cards and places them at the bottom of their deck. This keeps happening until someone gains all 52 cards. It's that simple. In this game, a king will always beat a queen, and a nine always trumps a four. We can think of sports teams like cards in the deck. In the NBA, we could call the Warriors an ace, the highest card, and the Lakers a three. However, the difference is that the ace doesn't always beat the three. Sure, the ace is a heavy favorite, and more likely to win against the three than a jack, for instance, but it isn't a predetermined outcome.
This shouldn't come as a surprise, but sports teams don't perform on the same level in every game they play. Sometimes a basketball team gets really hot, and seemingly can't miss a three-pointer, while in other games they're cold as ice, and can't buy a bucket. It happens to everyone. The best shooter on the planet, Stephen Curry, had one of his worst shooting performances in game 2 of the NBA Finals recently, but then played incredible games later on in the series. One game really can't say anything about how good or bad a team is. A larger sample size is needed.
For instance, what if a team's star player is injured for a game. Surely that has a large impact on the performance of the team. If someone who is not knowledgeable about sports saw a great team without their best player, they could easily think the team is bad. Additionally, some teams simply match up well against others. A poor team whose biggest strength happens to be a great team's weakness has a much better chance of pulling an upset than if they didn't have any discernible advantage.
Home field advantage often plays a large role in who wins games as well. The home court, fans, and possibly even referee bias can provide a significant advantage, making home teams win 58% of NFL games since 1990, for example. Some teams, such as the Seattle Seahawks, are almost unbeatable on their own turf. For the NFL, Vegas typically gives three spread points to whoever is home, meaning that if a team would be a three-point favorite in a matchup at a neutral site, the game is a virtual coin flip if they're on the road.
Speaking of on the road, sometimes in the NBA and NHL, teams will play games on back-to-back days, and then three games in four days or four in five. By the end of these stretches, fatigue is significant and visible on the court.
Sometimes, even luck plays a role in who wins a game. Referees will sometimes unknowingly make an incorrect call, and sometimes these end up being large, game-changing events. In soccer, penalty kicks are largely luck as well. Sure, some players are more accurate and can drill the ball into a corner better than others, but the goalie diving the right direction? It's just a guess.
The big idea I'm trying to get across is that the winner of a game doesn't necessarily have to be the best team. It is, however, the team that performed the best on that given day. When the Giants upset the 18-0 Patriots in Super Bowl XLII, it wasn't because they were the better team. The Patriots, overall, were far superior to any NFL team that year. Record-wise, there were five teams in the NFC alone better than the Giants. It's because it all came together at the right time, and they had a magical performance when it mattered most.
There's a reason the NBA, MLB, and NHL play seven-game playoff series. It's because they want the best teams to advance, and to prove they are the best teams. Anyone can win one game, but it takes a lot more to take down four of seven. Teams that have one or two-game flukes aren't rewarded by advancing. Instead, they have an advantage, but still have to prove that over the course of a long series, home and away, they can overcome pressure and fatigue to rise as the rightful victor.
So stop utilizing the transitive property to explain how your team is really better than your buddy's. It's just plain annoying, and about as weak an argument as there is. Even if your team beats your friend's it doesn't necessarily make them better, especially if we're talking about baseball, where even the worst teams still win about one game out of every three. If you bring up how your team beat team X by 24 and your friend's team only beat them by 10, that's even worse. A win is a win. But just one doesn't make you better than anybody else.
Regardless of why the transitive property is used, I've made it my mission to debunk the myth, if you can even call it that, and crush the notion that the transitive property is an appropriate argument as thoroughly as possible, because there is so much more to determining how good teams are than simply how they played against another team.
Now, if you aren't a sports person, than you might be thinking something like this: "I'm not really sure what Connor's talking about here. It makes sense that Team A is better than Team C if Team A beat Team B which beat Team C. Right?" Well, the main problem with this argument is that as long as the two teams being compared each have wins and losses (obviously the idea can't work with winless and undefeated teams), it's basically possible to say that anybody is better than anybody through use of the transitive property.
Don't believe me? Let me introduce you to the NFL Circle of Parity, or what I like to call the Any Given Sunday Circle. Basically, the idea is that over the course of the NFL season, enough games are played so that a circle can be made of a team who beat a team who beat a team, etc. that includes every team in the league. It's proof that if you try hard enough, any team can be viewed as being better than any other team through use of the transitive property, because in the NFL, anyone can beat anyone on any given sunday. If you want a visual representation of this, here's a link to last season's circle: http://i.imgur.com/GRC6lT1.png. Keep in mind when you're looking at the graphic that what is shown is not necessarily the quickest way to connect every team in the league, but simply a way that plays allows for the best and worst teams to fit in. There were only two teams that lost to the Buccaneers, so it kind of forces teams to be in certain positions. Most of the time, that route connecting two teams is very short. For instance, while the circle shows the Dolphins beating the Patriots, the Patriots also beat the Dolphins, so instead of 31 links between the Patriots beating the Dolphins, only one is really necessary. If you're interested, a similar circle has been made for every season since 2010, and I'd imagine one can be made for every season in the 16-game era besides 2007, where the Patriots went 16-0, and 2008, where the Lions went 0-16.
Why is this possible? Just think about it. Take an 8-8 team. If you want to say they're better than another team, it's pretty simple. First off, they've beaten eight teams. Technically it could be fewer if they won two against a division opponent, but let's call it eight. If the team you want them to be better than isn't one of those eight, than you can move onto any team those eight have beaten. This should get to the desired team the vast majority of the time, because if these teams have an average 8-8 record, than it means they've beat a combined 64 teams. That means on average every team should be beaten twice on average by the eight in question, and only 23 other teams remain, since it's a 32-team league and your team and the eight they beat don't count. If you still haven't gotten there, than go to the teams these 64 have beaten. That should be about 512 wins, and the numbers just keep getting higher. I don't even think it's possible to not be able to use the transitive property if the teams in question aren't undefeated or winless. It gets slightly more difficult if a team has fewer wins, but still very much possible.
It's not just football either. I would say this is easily possible with every major team sport. For college sports fans, there is a website appropriately called http://myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/, where you can compare any two college football, men's basketball, or women's basketball teams and see the shortest path connecting the two via the transitive property. Then for extra fun you can "flip it", and show how the inferior team is actually better using its own chain of matchups. Using the website, ere's proof that arguably the worst FBS football team, 1-11 Georgia State, is actually better than the National Champions, Ohio State: http://myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/default.asp?sport=CFB&winner=Georgia+St&loser=Ohio+St&year=2014&method=2#.VX-4ZFVViko.
Okay, so it's pretty clear that the transitive property works for just about anyone, and that the larger the season and more wins a team has, the easier it is to use the transitive property. But why exactly do some teams beat strong opponents and lose to weak ones? There's tons of reasons.
Remember the card game war? If you don't, here's the basic premise. A standard deck of cards is divided evenly amongst the game's players. Then each player flips over the top card in their deck, and the player who flips over the highest card takes everyone's cards and places them at the bottom of their deck. This keeps happening until someone gains all 52 cards. It's that simple. In this game, a king will always beat a queen, and a nine always trumps a four. We can think of sports teams like cards in the deck. In the NBA, we could call the Warriors an ace, the highest card, and the Lakers a three. However, the difference is that the ace doesn't always beat the three. Sure, the ace is a heavy favorite, and more likely to win against the three than a jack, for instance, but it isn't a predetermined outcome.
This shouldn't come as a surprise, but sports teams don't perform on the same level in every game they play. Sometimes a basketball team gets really hot, and seemingly can't miss a three-pointer, while in other games they're cold as ice, and can't buy a bucket. It happens to everyone. The best shooter on the planet, Stephen Curry, had one of his worst shooting performances in game 2 of the NBA Finals recently, but then played incredible games later on in the series. One game really can't say anything about how good or bad a team is. A larger sample size is needed.
For instance, what if a team's star player is injured for a game. Surely that has a large impact on the performance of the team. If someone who is not knowledgeable about sports saw a great team without their best player, they could easily think the team is bad. Additionally, some teams simply match up well against others. A poor team whose biggest strength happens to be a great team's weakness has a much better chance of pulling an upset than if they didn't have any discernible advantage.
Home field advantage often plays a large role in who wins games as well. The home court, fans, and possibly even referee bias can provide a significant advantage, making home teams win 58% of NFL games since 1990, for example. Some teams, such as the Seattle Seahawks, are almost unbeatable on their own turf. For the NFL, Vegas typically gives three spread points to whoever is home, meaning that if a team would be a three-point favorite in a matchup at a neutral site, the game is a virtual coin flip if they're on the road.
Speaking of on the road, sometimes in the NBA and NHL, teams will play games on back-to-back days, and then three games in four days or four in five. By the end of these stretches, fatigue is significant and visible on the court.
Sometimes, even luck plays a role in who wins a game. Referees will sometimes unknowingly make an incorrect call, and sometimes these end up being large, game-changing events. In soccer, penalty kicks are largely luck as well. Sure, some players are more accurate and can drill the ball into a corner better than others, but the goalie diving the right direction? It's just a guess.
The big idea I'm trying to get across is that the winner of a game doesn't necessarily have to be the best team. It is, however, the team that performed the best on that given day. When the Giants upset the 18-0 Patriots in Super Bowl XLII, it wasn't because they were the better team. The Patriots, overall, were far superior to any NFL team that year. Record-wise, there were five teams in the NFC alone better than the Giants. It's because it all came together at the right time, and they had a magical performance when it mattered most.
There's a reason the NBA, MLB, and NHL play seven-game playoff series. It's because they want the best teams to advance, and to prove they are the best teams. Anyone can win one game, but it takes a lot more to take down four of seven. Teams that have one or two-game flukes aren't rewarded by advancing. Instead, they have an advantage, but still have to prove that over the course of a long series, home and away, they can overcome pressure and fatigue to rise as the rightful victor.
So stop utilizing the transitive property to explain how your team is really better than your buddy's. It's just plain annoying, and about as weak an argument as there is. Even if your team beats your friend's it doesn't necessarily make them better, especially if we're talking about baseball, where even the worst teams still win about one game out of every three. If you bring up how your team beat team X by 24 and your friend's team only beat them by 10, that's even worse. A win is a win. But just one doesn't make you better than anybody else.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
1 Year Anniversary! My Top 10 Favorite Posts
One year ago today, I finally decided to take to the blogosphere to share my insight and beliefs on the world of sports. It was a big change in the sense that for the first time ever anyone who wanted to could look at my take on sports events and issues, but really, it's no different than what I've done throughout my life. Over the last 16 years, I've been consumed by sports and have been willing to share my thoughts with anyone and everyone at any given opportunity. The difference now is that I am able to broadcast my thoughts to a much wider audience, which I am thankful for.
It's been a fun and interesting year with many ups and downs. I received a lot of positive feedback immediately with my World Cup posts, some of which remain the most viewed posts to date. Since then, it's been up and down in terms of how much I've been writing, and how much feedback things have gotten. But in the end, I'm just happy to have this creative outlet.
The first year has definitely been about experimenting. I've done previews, predictions, reviews, recaps, columns, podcasts, and have even tried out a couple series of posts. Additionally, I've written about over a dozen different sports, and over 100 posts overall. I've learned to be flexible in the different things I can write, and have also been developing my own personal writing style.
Year two promises to be even better than year one. The goals for year two are to continue writing like I did the first year, but on a more scheduled basis (three posts in four days and then nothing for two weeks and repeat isn't a great strategy for building an audience), do more podcasts and Youtube videos, and finally to do a better job of spreading the word and getting interaction on the website and social media.
To celebrate the one-year anniversary, I've decided to create a list of ten of my favorite and best posts and share them, so newer people to the blog can have a look at the posts that I've enjoyed writing most, and I believe are the most relevant and strongest overall. In chronological order, here's the best of year one.
#1- Stop Saying Sports are Rigged by Referees! Original post date: 6/12/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/06/stop-saying-sports-are-rigged-by.html
This was just my third ever post, and tomorrow will mark its one-year anniversary. Written in response to allegations that Brazil's opening game of the World Cup was rigged in favor of Brazil, I talk about how referees are humans which sometimes make mistakes, how I believe that there is still some integrity left in professional sports, and defend a profession which far too often faces criticism.
#2- The 6 Biggest Problems with the MLS Original post date: 7/22/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-6-biggest-problems-with-mls.html
Sure, the MLS is a quickly growing league in terms of both player quality and popularity, but it still has its fair share of issues. Here I breakdown the changes, mostly structural, which I would like to see be made to the MLS, the majority of which would be conforming to the norms of top European soccer leagues, the most successful leagues in the world.
#3- Why the "One and Done" Rule Needs to Go Original post date: 8/14/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-one-and-done-rule-needs-to-go.html
I've long had a problem with the "one and done" rule, because of how it weakens the college game by loading up the same few teams every year just to have all the best players immediately leave for the NBA, and how it rushes players into the league before they are mature enough. I expand upon those arguments and list other reasons for opposing the rule in this post.
#4- Women's Professional Sports Popularity Issues Original post date: 9/10/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/09/womens-professional-sports-popularity.html
The reception to this post genuinely amazed me. Excluding podcasts, this post has been read more times than any other I've ever written. It's not close either. This one almost doubles second place, which is also on this list. I talk about the reasons why women's sports aren't as popular as men's and what needs to be done to fix the problem.
#5- Pete Rose Should be in the Hall of Fame! Original post date: 11/7/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/11/pete-rose-should-be-in-hall-of-fame.html
Here's the second most read post the blog has seen through one year. Here I remind readers of Pete Rose's career statistics and accomplishments, as well as give an overview of the gambling scandal that caused him to be given a lifetime ban from professional baseball. I then argue why I believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and why sports betting shouldn't be illegal anyways.
#6- The Issue With Hockey's Scoring System Original post date: 1/28/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-issue-with-hockeys-scoring-system.html
When I first created the blog, this was one of my first ideas for things I wanted to write about. I explain why the hockey scoring system incentivizes teams to play for overtime rather than actually winning games. By awarding an extra point for the team who wins in overtime, more points are available to be won by simply going to OT.
#7- Why College Basketball is my Favorite Sport Original post date: 2/4/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-college-basketball-is-my-favorite.html
This post is pretty self-explanatory. I explain all of the reasons why college basketball is my favorite sport, including how there's always a game on, all the cinderella stories, and of course, March Madness.
#8- Eliminate Hack-a-Shaq? Original post date: 4/28/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/04/eliminate-hack-shaq.html
After watching the series between the Rockets and Clippers, and seeing all the hate Hack-a-Shaq was getting, when in reality it is a viable strategy, I decided to do a full analysis of the technique hated by so many for slowing down the game. I even used my calculator and AP Statistics to help construct a probability chart for this one. It's probably the post which took me the longest to write, and definitely a personal favorite.
#9- NBA Coaches Are Going to Get Paid Original post date: 5/23/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/05/nba-coaches-are-going-to-get-paid.html
When news broke of Billy Donovan's five year, $30 million contract with the Thunder despite no prior NBA coaching experience, I realized something. New coaches in the league for the first time such as Brad Stevens and Steve Kerr are shaking up the league, and it could lead to a serious salary boost for the league's best coaches.
#10- Gripes with Sports Fans: Wishing for Injuries Original post date: 5/31/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/05/gripes-with-sports-fans-wishing-for.html
This is the first entry in my new series, Gripes with Sports Fans, detailing the things that annoy me the most about other fans. Here I take a strong stance against wishing for players to get injured and being happy when they do, on moral grounds that it just isn't right, or even human, to be happy seeing another person in serious pain.
Hopefully I'll be able to write more posts like these in the coming year. But until then, Happy Birthday, Toplevelsports! My baby has turned 1!
Connor
It's been a fun and interesting year with many ups and downs. I received a lot of positive feedback immediately with my World Cup posts, some of which remain the most viewed posts to date. Since then, it's been up and down in terms of how much I've been writing, and how much feedback things have gotten. But in the end, I'm just happy to have this creative outlet.
The first year has definitely been about experimenting. I've done previews, predictions, reviews, recaps, columns, podcasts, and have even tried out a couple series of posts. Additionally, I've written about over a dozen different sports, and over 100 posts overall. I've learned to be flexible in the different things I can write, and have also been developing my own personal writing style.
Year two promises to be even better than year one. The goals for year two are to continue writing like I did the first year, but on a more scheduled basis (three posts in four days and then nothing for two weeks and repeat isn't a great strategy for building an audience), do more podcasts and Youtube videos, and finally to do a better job of spreading the word and getting interaction on the website and social media.
To celebrate the one-year anniversary, I've decided to create a list of ten of my favorite and best posts and share them, so newer people to the blog can have a look at the posts that I've enjoyed writing most, and I believe are the most relevant and strongest overall. In chronological order, here's the best of year one.
#1- Stop Saying Sports are Rigged by Referees! Original post date: 6/12/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/06/stop-saying-sports-are-rigged-by.html
This was just my third ever post, and tomorrow will mark its one-year anniversary. Written in response to allegations that Brazil's opening game of the World Cup was rigged in favor of Brazil, I talk about how referees are humans which sometimes make mistakes, how I believe that there is still some integrity left in professional sports, and defend a profession which far too often faces criticism.
#2- The 6 Biggest Problems with the MLS Original post date: 7/22/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-6-biggest-problems-with-mls.html
Sure, the MLS is a quickly growing league in terms of both player quality and popularity, but it still has its fair share of issues. Here I breakdown the changes, mostly structural, which I would like to see be made to the MLS, the majority of which would be conforming to the norms of top European soccer leagues, the most successful leagues in the world.
#3- Why the "One and Done" Rule Needs to Go Original post date: 8/14/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-one-and-done-rule-needs-to-go.html
I've long had a problem with the "one and done" rule, because of how it weakens the college game by loading up the same few teams every year just to have all the best players immediately leave for the NBA, and how it rushes players into the league before they are mature enough. I expand upon those arguments and list other reasons for opposing the rule in this post.
#4- Women's Professional Sports Popularity Issues Original post date: 9/10/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/09/womens-professional-sports-popularity.html
The reception to this post genuinely amazed me. Excluding podcasts, this post has been read more times than any other I've ever written. It's not close either. This one almost doubles second place, which is also on this list. I talk about the reasons why women's sports aren't as popular as men's and what needs to be done to fix the problem.
#5- Pete Rose Should be in the Hall of Fame! Original post date: 11/7/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/11/pete-rose-should-be-in-hall-of-fame.html
Here's the second most read post the blog has seen through one year. Here I remind readers of Pete Rose's career statistics and accomplishments, as well as give an overview of the gambling scandal that caused him to be given a lifetime ban from professional baseball. I then argue why I believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and why sports betting shouldn't be illegal anyways.
#6- The Issue With Hockey's Scoring System Original post date: 1/28/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-issue-with-hockeys-scoring-system.html
When I first created the blog, this was one of my first ideas for things I wanted to write about. I explain why the hockey scoring system incentivizes teams to play for overtime rather than actually winning games. By awarding an extra point for the team who wins in overtime, more points are available to be won by simply going to OT.
#7- Why College Basketball is my Favorite Sport Original post date: 2/4/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-college-basketball-is-my-favorite.html
This post is pretty self-explanatory. I explain all of the reasons why college basketball is my favorite sport, including how there's always a game on, all the cinderella stories, and of course, March Madness.
#8- Eliminate Hack-a-Shaq? Original post date: 4/28/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/04/eliminate-hack-shaq.html
After watching the series between the Rockets and Clippers, and seeing all the hate Hack-a-Shaq was getting, when in reality it is a viable strategy, I decided to do a full analysis of the technique hated by so many for slowing down the game. I even used my calculator and AP Statistics to help construct a probability chart for this one. It's probably the post which took me the longest to write, and definitely a personal favorite.
#9- NBA Coaches Are Going to Get Paid Original post date: 5/23/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/05/nba-coaches-are-going-to-get-paid.html
When news broke of Billy Donovan's five year, $30 million contract with the Thunder despite no prior NBA coaching experience, I realized something. New coaches in the league for the first time such as Brad Stevens and Steve Kerr are shaking up the league, and it could lead to a serious salary boost for the league's best coaches.
#10- Gripes with Sports Fans: Wishing for Injuries Original post date: 5/31/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/05/gripes-with-sports-fans-wishing-for.html
This is the first entry in my new series, Gripes with Sports Fans, detailing the things that annoy me the most about other fans. Here I take a strong stance against wishing for players to get injured and being happy when they do, on moral grounds that it just isn't right, or even human, to be happy seeing another person in serious pain.
Hopefully I'll be able to write more posts like these in the coming year. But until then, Happy Birthday, Toplevelsports! My baby has turned 1!
Connor
Monday, February 23, 2015
Vacating Wins and Titles is Wrong
In 2014, the Jackie Robinson West Little League in Chicago won the U.S. Championship. Oh wait, no they didn't. It was Mountain West Little League from Las Vegas. In fact, the Jackie Robinson West Little League didn't win any games. They lost six times by a score of 6-0, even though it's a double-elimination tournament. Wait, I'm getting word in now that Jackie Robinson West never even went to the Little League World Series in the first place. Oh right, it was New Albany, Indiana. How could I have forgotten?
If the opening paragraph sounded strange to you, good. It should have. In actuality, Jackie Robinson West (I'll call them JRW from now on) did win the U.S. title, and they were the team which fell to South Korea in the championship game. However, because of an investigation which resulted in Little League claiming JRW used ineligible players from outside their district (which they deny was done purposefully, but let's be real). The punishment? All of their wins at the LLWS were vacated, their title was stripped, and even their LL qualification title to play in Williamsport was taken away. But there's one catch: it wasn't the players' faults.
If the opening paragraph sounded strange to you, good. It should have. In actuality, Jackie Robinson West (I'll call them JRW from now on) did win the U.S. title, and they were the team which fell to South Korea in the championship game. However, because of an investigation which resulted in Little League claiming JRW used ineligible players from outside their district (which they deny was done purposefully, but let's be real). The punishment? All of their wins at the LLWS were vacated, their title was stripped, and even their LL qualification title to play in Williamsport was taken away. But there's one catch: it wasn't the players' faults.
These kids are between 11 and 13 years old. They have no idea what the district requirements are, and their parents probably don't either. The responsibility falls on the people who run JRW, those behind the scenes, for cheating and placing more emphasis on winning than teaching fundamentals and sportsmanship. The goal is always winning, but doing so through legal means and teaching kids the correct way to play the game. Because of their inability to follow established rules, an entire team of young ballplayers and their families now suffer.
This team had a great story. JRW was the first all African-American team to appear in the LLWS in decades, and it was really enjoyable to see the team having a blast and continuing to win as the tournament went on. These kids were even able to go to the White House and meet President Obama, an experience they surely will never forget. Why take away from their accomplishments by stripping them of a title they clearly won. Little League can try to rewrite the record books any way they want, but it doesn't change what we have on video and in our memories, that JRW won. We all know it, and that fact can't go away, so why put an asterisk next to their accomplishments or try to hide them? They won. Period. The means by which they won were illegal, and although we have to focus on eliminating all forms of cheating, you can't erase what's already been done.
Sure, this is can be a touchy subject for people. Nobody wants to advocate cheating, as it is the worst offense in competitions. However, does the many really need to be punished for the actions of the few? I'm sure we've all been in a classroom where a teacher allows the students to talk quietly, but when two or three people are loud and can't lower their voices, everyone loses the speaking privilege. Remember how much you wanted to protest, "It's not my fault!", and how much you hated those two or three kids at the moment? Well that's the situation we're putting these kids into. Except this time it's the adults ruining it for everyone, the ones that should've already grown up. Just as every kid wants only the trouble-makers to be punished, I say the Little League should have just given life-bans to those responsible.
The only reason I can somewhat understand this punishment is because it is they used an ineligible player, which I guess gives them some slight unfair advantage. But then again, the same can be said for the Patriots in Deflate-gate (and probably most other games they played), but we don't see the NFL vacating the Patriots' wins and taking back the Lombardi Trophy, now do we?
Win and title vacation isn't just an issue in Little League. Usually, the idea of vacating wins comes from the NCAA, where numerous teams have been issued punishments which include taking away some of their victories. In fact, 42 schools have had college basketball wins vacated, and while many of them have interesting stories, I want to focus on a football case: namely USC's 2004 title and 2005 season. Long story short, USC, led by Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush, went undefeated in 2004, and whooped Oklahoma 55-19 in the Orange Bowl for the National Championship. They then had another undefeated season in 2005, but lost to Texas in the Rose Bowl by a last second Vince Young scramble, ending their quest for back-to-back national titles. However, after an investigation, Bush was found to have received gifts, illegal for college players, and the 2004 title and entire 2005 season were vacated, along with a two-year postseason ban and 30 lost scholarships (only a bit excessive...).
This is generally seen as a travesty, and for good reason. The only people responsible for the actions that led to the NCAA's consequences were Reggie Bush and his family. It should have been enough for the NCAA to strip Bush of all the awards he won (including a Heisman Trophy), but instead the entire team, school, and fan base suffered from Bush's actions. Now no mention of the National Championship or the 2005 season as a whole exists, and it's almost as if Bush never went to the school.
The final example I'll use of a team having a title vacated is the 2002 NCAA Men's Volleyball Championship, won by Hawaii. After winning, it was revealed that four-time All-American Costas Theocharidis played professionally in Europe before attending Hawaii, and although he was never paid, playing professionally takes away one's NCAA eligibility. Take a wild guess what the NCAA did. Oh hey, Hawaii. Remember that title we just gave you? Well, we're taking it back. Take that, cheaters. Again, I'll make my point clear. Try to stop cheating earlier (in this case the rules were a bit fuzzy on international semi-professional sports), remove the accolades/positions of offenders, but let the schools keep their titles. They did win, after all.
I think it's outrageous for titles to be removed from their rightful owners, but I also think taking wins away is generally wrong. Derrick Rose had someone take his SAT for him, which made him ineligible for college athletics. However, this was only discovered after he played at Memphis. The NCAA then proceeded to vacate all wins from the 2007-08 season which saw Memphis lose in the National Championship game to Kansas, finishing the year 38-2. Due to the vacation, the team went 0-1. Joe Paterno had over 100 wins stripped away for the Penn State scandal (they were eventually returned), even though the scandal had nothing to do with football. Even the Fab-5 received illegal gifts. However, none of it takes away their accomplishments on the court.
The NCAA seems to believe that if any team violated any rules whatsoever they can just vacate wins and the problem will be solved. That's not how it works. You crack down on cheating by making promises of banning players and coaches and those responsible for LIFE. Is that excessive? Maybe, but it's the right kind of excessive. It forces institutions to run tight ships and it might be able to eliminate cheating. Maybe then we can stop worrying about fair play and put all our focus on the games.
Sure, this is can be a touchy subject for people. Nobody wants to advocate cheating, as it is the worst offense in competitions. However, does the many really need to be punished for the actions of the few? I'm sure we've all been in a classroom where a teacher allows the students to talk quietly, but when two or three people are loud and can't lower their voices, everyone loses the speaking privilege. Remember how much you wanted to protest, "It's not my fault!", and how much you hated those two or three kids at the moment? Well that's the situation we're putting these kids into. Except this time it's the adults ruining it for everyone, the ones that should've already grown up. Just as every kid wants only the trouble-makers to be punished, I say the Little League should have just given life-bans to those responsible.
The only reason I can somewhat understand this punishment is because it is they used an ineligible player, which I guess gives them some slight unfair advantage. But then again, the same can be said for the Patriots in Deflate-gate (and probably most other games they played), but we don't see the NFL vacating the Patriots' wins and taking back the Lombardi Trophy, now do we?
Win and title vacation isn't just an issue in Little League. Usually, the idea of vacating wins comes from the NCAA, where numerous teams have been issued punishments which include taking away some of their victories. In fact, 42 schools have had college basketball wins vacated, and while many of them have interesting stories, I want to focus on a football case: namely USC's 2004 title and 2005 season. Long story short, USC, led by Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush, went undefeated in 2004, and whooped Oklahoma 55-19 in the Orange Bowl for the National Championship. They then had another undefeated season in 2005, but lost to Texas in the Rose Bowl by a last second Vince Young scramble, ending their quest for back-to-back national titles. However, after an investigation, Bush was found to have received gifts, illegal for college players, and the 2004 title and entire 2005 season were vacated, along with a two-year postseason ban and 30 lost scholarships (only a bit excessive...).
This is generally seen as a travesty, and for good reason. The only people responsible for the actions that led to the NCAA's consequences were Reggie Bush and his family. It should have been enough for the NCAA to strip Bush of all the awards he won (including a Heisman Trophy), but instead the entire team, school, and fan base suffered from Bush's actions. Now no mention of the National Championship or the 2005 season as a whole exists, and it's almost as if Bush never went to the school.
The final example I'll use of a team having a title vacated is the 2002 NCAA Men's Volleyball Championship, won by Hawaii. After winning, it was revealed that four-time All-American Costas Theocharidis played professionally in Europe before attending Hawaii, and although he was never paid, playing professionally takes away one's NCAA eligibility. Take a wild guess what the NCAA did. Oh hey, Hawaii. Remember that title we just gave you? Well, we're taking it back. Take that, cheaters. Again, I'll make my point clear. Try to stop cheating earlier (in this case the rules were a bit fuzzy on international semi-professional sports), remove the accolades/positions of offenders, but let the schools keep their titles. They did win, after all.
I think it's outrageous for titles to be removed from their rightful owners, but I also think taking wins away is generally wrong. Derrick Rose had someone take his SAT for him, which made him ineligible for college athletics. However, this was only discovered after he played at Memphis. The NCAA then proceeded to vacate all wins from the 2007-08 season which saw Memphis lose in the National Championship game to Kansas, finishing the year 38-2. Due to the vacation, the team went 0-1. Joe Paterno had over 100 wins stripped away for the Penn State scandal (they were eventually returned), even though the scandal had nothing to do with football. Even the Fab-5 received illegal gifts. However, none of it takes away their accomplishments on the court.
The NCAA seems to believe that if any team violated any rules whatsoever they can just vacate wins and the problem will be solved. That's not how it works. You crack down on cheating by making promises of banning players and coaches and those responsible for LIFE. Is that excessive? Maybe, but it's the right kind of excessive. It forces institutions to run tight ships and it might be able to eliminate cheating. Maybe then we can stop worrying about fair play and put all our focus on the games.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Slow Down the Hype Train 2: Teams
So a week ago I was talking about how quite frequently sports fans tend to exaggerate and blow things way out of proportion, especially in calling players the "best" and comparing them to the greatest players of all-time, usually when the comparison is inappropriate. In case you missed it, here it is. http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/02/slow-down-hype-train-problem-with.html. However, we make this mistake with more than just players; we do it with entire teams. Here are some more examples of why we need to Slow Down the Hype Train.
Let's take a look at the Philadelphia 76ers, the team that couldn't win a game. They started the season with 17 consecutive losses, and when a team loses that many games in a row, everyone starts wondering,"will they ever win again?" Herein lies the issue. There were seriously people that thought the team would ranked 82 games and go winless, or at least have the worst record ever. There were even many that claimed that they would lose to the University of Kentucky. Man does that get me fired up.
Now where are they? The team currently stands at 12-41, meaning they've gone 12-24 since their horrendous start, winning one game out of every three. That's not horrible. Sure it's not good, but that's usually good for not being one of the five worst teams in the league. Even with their 17-loss start, they still have a better overall record than the Timberwolves and Knicks. How can you call them worse than a college team when they're not even the worst NBA team?
I get really angry whenever someone tries to call a college team better than a professional one. It's happened in basketball as well as in football, where over the last few years people have questioned if Alabama would beat the Jaguars or the Raiders or Bucs, depending on who was the league's worst team that particular year. I want to very quickly respond to these questions. There is no college team better than a pro team. Period.
Could a college team feasibly beat a professional one? Of course. Neil Paine of Fivethiryeight does a good job of summing up my points here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/kentucky-would-lose-to-the-76ers-at-least-78-percent-of-the-time/. The main idea is that while any team can get lucky and beat a better one (upsets happen all the time), especially in basketball where any one player getting a hot hand can drastically increase his team's odds of winning, over the long haul any professional team would win a large majority of games against college teams because only the very best college players make it into the pros. Over the last five years, 19 Kentucky players have been drafted into the NBA, or 4.8 a year, which we'll call five. So Kentucky usually has about five NBA caliber players. An NBA team has 12, and they've all proven themselves in college and have had additional years of experience, training, and maturation in the NBA, along with playing more frequently and playing much, much higher levels of competition. That's what Kentucky would be going up against. Alabama football has had 37 players drafted per year, so for them we're talking 7.6 pro-level players up against 53, again with even more conditioning and experience. It's a tough task for anyone, that's why its the pros. It's why they make so much money.
As far as calling teams the best ever, here's my main rule: don't do it while the team is still playing games. It shouldn't be hard to understand why. If you want to compare a team to the best of all-time, you have to wait until their season is over to really be able to gauge how good they are. If Michael Jordan's 1995-96 Bulls are considered by many to be the best NBA team ever. They are the only team to win 70 games in a season, going 72-10, and 15-3 in the playoffs, with the season culminating in Jordan's fourth ring. The team featured three Hall of Famers (Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman), possibly the greatest coach ever in Phil Jackson. However, if they didn't win the championship, their accomplishments would not be seen in the same light. No team can be the best ever if they don't even win the championship in that season.
Going back to Kentucky, a lot of people have been calling them the greatest college basketball team ever. They have some good reason to believe that this may be possible. The team has at least six or seven for sure draft picks next year, and is an undefeated 26-0 currently. If they become the first team to have a perfect 40-0 year, they would have a pretty strong case to being the best team ever. But that hasn't happened yet, and until it does, we can't give them that accolade. They've been taken down to the wire several times in SEC play, including overtime twice, so they haven't been dominant every game. It's not that hard to see them slipping up.
Just as I stated in part 1, I have no issue with people getting fired up about teams that are really good. I simply want everyone to being reasonable with the claims they make, and not to blow things too out of proportion. It's usually best to make judgments after you have all the facts.
Could a college team feasibly beat a professional one? Of course. Neil Paine of Fivethiryeight does a good job of summing up my points here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/kentucky-would-lose-to-the-76ers-at-least-78-percent-of-the-time/. The main idea is that while any team can get lucky and beat a better one (upsets happen all the time), especially in basketball where any one player getting a hot hand can drastically increase his team's odds of winning, over the long haul any professional team would win a large majority of games against college teams because only the very best college players make it into the pros. Over the last five years, 19 Kentucky players have been drafted into the NBA, or 4.8 a year, which we'll call five. So Kentucky usually has about five NBA caliber players. An NBA team has 12, and they've all proven themselves in college and have had additional years of experience, training, and maturation in the NBA, along with playing more frequently and playing much, much higher levels of competition. That's what Kentucky would be going up against. Alabama football has had 37 players drafted per year, so for them we're talking 7.6 pro-level players up against 53, again with even more conditioning and experience. It's a tough task for anyone, that's why its the pros. It's why they make so much money.
As far as calling teams the best ever, here's my main rule: don't do it while the team is still playing games. It shouldn't be hard to understand why. If you want to compare a team to the best of all-time, you have to wait until their season is over to really be able to gauge how good they are. If Michael Jordan's 1995-96 Bulls are considered by many to be the best NBA team ever. They are the only team to win 70 games in a season, going 72-10, and 15-3 in the playoffs, with the season culminating in Jordan's fourth ring. The team featured three Hall of Famers (Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman), possibly the greatest coach ever in Phil Jackson. However, if they didn't win the championship, their accomplishments would not be seen in the same light. No team can be the best ever if they don't even win the championship in that season.
Going back to Kentucky, a lot of people have been calling them the greatest college basketball team ever. They have some good reason to believe that this may be possible. The team has at least six or seven for sure draft picks next year, and is an undefeated 26-0 currently. If they become the first team to have a perfect 40-0 year, they would have a pretty strong case to being the best team ever. But that hasn't happened yet, and until it does, we can't give them that accolade. They've been taken down to the wire several times in SEC play, including overtime twice, so they haven't been dominant every game. It's not that hard to see them slipping up.
Just as I stated in part 1, I have no issue with people getting fired up about teams that are really good. I simply want everyone to being reasonable with the claims they make, and not to blow things too out of proportion. It's usually best to make judgments after you have all the facts.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Slow Down the Hype Train: A Problem with Sports Fans part 1: Players
This is the first in a two part series criticizing how sports fans as a whole seem to overhype the best players and teams, comparing them to the all-time greats and having a tendency to use the word "best" more often than it is deserved. This part will concentrate on players, while the second part will concentrate on teams.
Andrew Wiggins is the next LeBron James. Remember when that was all anyone was talking about? While Wiggins was in high school and college he was hyped as one of those "once in a generation" players, only to disappoint everyone by failing to live up to near-impossible expectations. Wiggins, for a rookie, is one heck of a player, but nothing like the animal King James was in first season, averaging nearly 21 points per game to go along with five rebounds and just under six assists.
The Wiggins scenario is one that has played out all too frequently in sports. A year ago, Jadeveon Clowney was being dubbed the next Lawrence Taylor, another unreasonable comparison solely based on high school and college performance. Instead of performing like the greatest defensive player of all time, we are now wondering if Clowney will be able to perform at all after multiple injuries limited Clowney to only appearing in four games for the Texans this season, accumulating just seven tackles in the process. Greg Oden was thought to be the next Shaq. We all know how that turned out- injuries tore everything apart, and Oden is still struggling to even make a roster, having only played in three seasons for a total of just over 100 games since being drafted #1 overall in 2007.
The point I'm trying to make here is that all too often in sports we, the fans, get ahead of ourselves and exaggerate things, and I'm not just talking about hyping draft picks. We put extreme emphasis on the best players, the best teams, the worst teams, and jump to make either unrealistic or unnecessary comparisons at every given opportunity. We all have a tendency to compare the current greats to the best of all time, and tend to rush calling players "great" before they've really proven themselves. All of this can be seen from some of the biggest stories in sports today.
Let's talk about Odell Beckham Jr., something I love to do. Beckham took the world by storm this past season, putting up one of the most impressive rookie seasons in recent memory, marked by his incredible three-finger touchdown grab considered to be one of the greatest catches of all-time (which actually might not be an exaggeration). Immediately Odell began being called one of the best receivers in the league, and receiving comparisons to Randy Moss and Jerry Rice. Does he have the potential to be as good as these all-time greats? He very well might. But will he? It's a totally different question.
People have to understand that things happen. I hope it never happens, but there is the possibility that Odell could get injured. He also could be facing a bit of a reduced role with the return of Victor Cruz, although I still see him getting as many touches as possible. Teams will also no doubt be better adjusted and prepared to guard him after getting the offseason to watch film. The idea here is that Odell hasn't even played a full season yet, so it's not reasonable to start estimated how good his career will be. Sure, his potential might be incredible, but so was Oden's. Shaq's best rebounds per game season came as he was a rookie, and Randy Moss had his highest yards per reception and second highest touchdowns in a year as a rookie. The point is, he might not continue to dominate as much as he has.
Shifting back to basketball, I want to discuss the LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. Different from my previous examples, James and Bryant have already established themselves as some of the greatest players to have played the game. Naturally, they've both been the subject of comparisons to the widely considered greatest player of all-time, Michael Jordan, because as I've stated, the sports world tends to want to evaluate the top players with regard to the GOAT (or greatest of all-time). It's why Messi is always compared to Diego Maradona, the best Argentinean ever and one of the greatest soccer players to have ever lived, right up there with Pele, and why the legacies of Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are always looked at in relationship to Joe Montana's. But back to James and Bryant, I will say that in both cases I am not a huge fan of the comparisons. To show why, I have to lay out my rules for making player comparisons.
1) Players have to both be either active or retired: there's no use in comparing a rookie to a legend, simply because we don't know how good the rookie will be. We determine how valuable players are through statistics, so it's only fair that if one player has finished their career, we wait for the other one to have a full list of both players' awards and statistics before judging who has a better resume. If you want to compare two active players, compare their value in the current season, unless they have played for the same amount of time, where a career comparison may be appropriate.
2) Players have to have played in a similar era with similar opponent skill level and without any substantial rule changes, or keep time differences in mind during the comparison: there's no use in juxtaposing a 1950s quarterback with a present-day one. The league was so different back then, and a quarterback was great if they could just throw more touchdowns than interceptions. Nowadays Eli Manning puts up a 4410 yard, 30 touchdown and 14 interception season and is called "average" by most (he's a fringe top 10 in reality). The importance of time was shown very recently when Klay Thompson broke* the record for most points in a quarter with 37. Notice the asterisk? That's because the previous record of 33 set by George Gervin was before the 3-point shot existed. If Klay played by those rules, his 37 would be 28.
3) In a sport where players are given specific positions, players should only be judged against players of the same position: LeBron is a small forward, and Michael Jordan is a shooting guard. They are much different players with different roles. Kobe-Jordan is a better comparison. In sports like golf and tennis, this rule doesn't apply, but just don't tell me Roger Clemens was better than Albert Pujols. I might not want to talk to you from that point on.
To wrap up this part, I want to make something clear. The excitement of the general population is a big reason why sports is as exciting as it is. If nobody cared or showed enthusiasm, there would be no point in watching or talking about sports. However, we still need to be reasonable. We can give credit where credit is due, and get excited when someone makes a huge play. It's just when we start using the words "best ever" or start getting ahead of ourselves and trying to compare everyone to legends that we can get ahead of ourselves, and end up looking dumb. So slow down the hype train, and don't hyperbolize for the heck of it. We do it enough already with players, and as I'll explain in part 2, we do quite enough with teams as well.
The Wiggins scenario is one that has played out all too frequently in sports. A year ago, Jadeveon Clowney was being dubbed the next Lawrence Taylor, another unreasonable comparison solely based on high school and college performance. Instead of performing like the greatest defensive player of all time, we are now wondering if Clowney will be able to perform at all after multiple injuries limited Clowney to only appearing in four games for the Texans this season, accumulating just seven tackles in the process. Greg Oden was thought to be the next Shaq. We all know how that turned out- injuries tore everything apart, and Oden is still struggling to even make a roster, having only played in three seasons for a total of just over 100 games since being drafted #1 overall in 2007.
The point I'm trying to make here is that all too often in sports we, the fans, get ahead of ourselves and exaggerate things, and I'm not just talking about hyping draft picks. We put extreme emphasis on the best players, the best teams, the worst teams, and jump to make either unrealistic or unnecessary comparisons at every given opportunity. We all have a tendency to compare the current greats to the best of all time, and tend to rush calling players "great" before they've really proven themselves. All of this can be seen from some of the biggest stories in sports today.
Let's talk about Odell Beckham Jr., something I love to do. Beckham took the world by storm this past season, putting up one of the most impressive rookie seasons in recent memory, marked by his incredible three-finger touchdown grab considered to be one of the greatest catches of all-time (which actually might not be an exaggeration). Immediately Odell began being called one of the best receivers in the league, and receiving comparisons to Randy Moss and Jerry Rice. Does he have the potential to be as good as these all-time greats? He very well might. But will he? It's a totally different question.
People have to understand that things happen. I hope it never happens, but there is the possibility that Odell could get injured. He also could be facing a bit of a reduced role with the return of Victor Cruz, although I still see him getting as many touches as possible. Teams will also no doubt be better adjusted and prepared to guard him after getting the offseason to watch film. The idea here is that Odell hasn't even played a full season yet, so it's not reasonable to start estimated how good his career will be. Sure, his potential might be incredible, but so was Oden's. Shaq's best rebounds per game season came as he was a rookie, and Randy Moss had his highest yards per reception and second highest touchdowns in a year as a rookie. The point is, he might not continue to dominate as much as he has.
Shifting back to basketball, I want to discuss the LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. Different from my previous examples, James and Bryant have already established themselves as some of the greatest players to have played the game. Naturally, they've both been the subject of comparisons to the widely considered greatest player of all-time, Michael Jordan, because as I've stated, the sports world tends to want to evaluate the top players with regard to the GOAT (or greatest of all-time). It's why Messi is always compared to Diego Maradona, the best Argentinean ever and one of the greatest soccer players to have ever lived, right up there with Pele, and why the legacies of Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are always looked at in relationship to Joe Montana's. But back to James and Bryant, I will say that in both cases I am not a huge fan of the comparisons. To show why, I have to lay out my rules for making player comparisons.
1) Players have to both be either active or retired: there's no use in comparing a rookie to a legend, simply because we don't know how good the rookie will be. We determine how valuable players are through statistics, so it's only fair that if one player has finished their career, we wait for the other one to have a full list of both players' awards and statistics before judging who has a better resume. If you want to compare two active players, compare their value in the current season, unless they have played for the same amount of time, where a career comparison may be appropriate.
2) Players have to have played in a similar era with similar opponent skill level and without any substantial rule changes, or keep time differences in mind during the comparison: there's no use in juxtaposing a 1950s quarterback with a present-day one. The league was so different back then, and a quarterback was great if they could just throw more touchdowns than interceptions. Nowadays Eli Manning puts up a 4410 yard, 30 touchdown and 14 interception season and is called "average" by most (he's a fringe top 10 in reality). The importance of time was shown very recently when Klay Thompson broke* the record for most points in a quarter with 37. Notice the asterisk? That's because the previous record of 33 set by George Gervin was before the 3-point shot existed. If Klay played by those rules, his 37 would be 28.
3) In a sport where players are given specific positions, players should only be judged against players of the same position: LeBron is a small forward, and Michael Jordan is a shooting guard. They are much different players with different roles. Kobe-Jordan is a better comparison. In sports like golf and tennis, this rule doesn't apply, but just don't tell me Roger Clemens was better than Albert Pujols. I might not want to talk to you from that point on.
To wrap up this part, I want to make something clear. The excitement of the general population is a big reason why sports is as exciting as it is. If nobody cared or showed enthusiasm, there would be no point in watching or talking about sports. However, we still need to be reasonable. We can give credit where credit is due, and get excited when someone makes a huge play. It's just when we start using the words "best ever" or start getting ahead of ourselves and trying to compare everyone to legends that we can get ahead of ourselves, and end up looking dumb. So slow down the hype train, and don't hyperbolize for the heck of it. We do it enough already with players, and as I'll explain in part 2, we do quite enough with teams as well.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Top Level Sports on Twitter
Just a short update to let everyone know that I am now on Twitter. My handle is @ConnorGroel and that's where I'll be expressing my opinions on all things sports and just talk about things that might not be big enough to get their own post on the blog. I might link cool articles I read or crazy sports videos I watch. I'll also be sharing all my blog posts on twitter, so you can be updated with everything I'm doing.
https://twitter.com/ConnorGroel
Thanks and Happy Holidays,
Connor
https://twitter.com/ConnorGroel
Thanks and Happy Holidays,
Connor
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Banning Sports Gambling is a Crime
This was my research paper last school year in English. I thought it was worth posting due to my strong beliefs on the issue and how similar it is to the topics discussed Pete Rose post, here: http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/11/pete-rose-should-be-in-hall-of-fame.html. Here is my main case for the legalization of sports betting.
Sports
gambling is an estimated $380 billion dollar industry. Yes, that is billion, with a B. Every year, millions of people including
myself participate in games that seem harmless at first glance, like Super Bowl
Squares and March Madness. However, with
the exception of four states, including Nevada, betting on these and many other
games is illegal, even though it is nearly an American pastime to throw a
couple bucks on a game. Legalizing sports gambling is an effective way to
regulate gambling across the country and bring more attention and revenue to
major sports leagues, and not legalizing it would lead to increasing illegal
activity and a loss in potential profits.
Sports gambling already happens in
all states, and gambling in some form is legal in most states, so there isn’t
much reason to prevent sports gambling.
The fact that sports gambling is legal in some states defeats the
purpose of making it illegal in others.
Michael Rosenberg puts it bluntly when he writes, “legal sports gambling
happens in this country every day, in a place my sources call “Las Vegas”
(Rosenberg). What Rosenberg says here is
completely true. Las Vegas is the
premier place to gamble in the world.
Why does sports gambling have to be legalized in Vegas but not in say, Texas? In addition, James Surowiecki states that “forty-three
states and the District of Columbia have lotteries. All the states except Utah and Hawaii have
commercial betting in some form. And
more than forty have racetrack betting” (Surowiecki). Again, if 48 states have betting, and most
states have betting in several forms, what is different about sports
betting? Is there anything different
about the Super Bowl and the lottery when both can result in hitting the
jackpot or losing it all? Perhaps another
hugely important topic to consider is fantasy sports, which are played by
roughly 13% of all Americans. Fantasy
sports are legal, because “fantasy Sports are considered games of skill – not
chance – if they can be won by successfully utilizing superior knowledge of the
players involved” (Smith). All these
examples of gambling are like outlawing Christianity and Islam, but saying
Hinduism is okay, or putting a ban on Nickelodeon and Disney, but allowing
Cartoon Network. They are all religions,
or children’s networks, so none should be more legal than another.
The legalization of sports gambling
would lead to an added interest in sporting events and would be profitable to
sports leagues and the economy. As
Surowiecki boldly states, “the ban on sports gambling does exactly what
Prohibition did. It makes criminals
rich…Legalized sports betting would bring in significant tax revenues for the
states” (Surowiecki). With taxes on
bets, revenues for states would be in the millions. Currently, the criminals running illegal
gambling organizations are making profits off of these millions in taxes the
government could be collecting. Also,
Rosenberg adds that “[Sports leagues] need people to watch so they can make
money, and they need to conduct sporting events to get people to watch. Gambling gets people to watch. It’s a huge boon” (Rosenberg). Gambling incentivizes the watching of sports,
and gets people more into it. I have
personal experience that when I have money wagered on a game, you care a lot
more about the game and watch it more closely, which gives higher ratings and
more distribution, being greatly advantageous to the sports leagues that claim
that sports gambling hurts their business.
If revenues are guaranteed, why are these leagues insistent that sports
gambling should remain outlawed? It
seems like an obvious flaw that should be changed, but as in every issue, there
is a con side.
The beliefs of people opposed to the
legalization of sports gambling – that gambling will cause game fixing and
addiction, are invalid and unreasonable arguments. James B. Butler, firmly against sports
gambling, reports that “in California, more than 1 million problem and
pathological gamblers cost the state more than $1 billion a year (Butler). This is plainly invalid because as I have
already proven, the government could make money from taxing these people, and
gamblers could just as easy gamble illegally or gamble on other things, such as
buying lottery tickets. On this logic,
one could buy a billion lottery tickets, and lose every time, and somehow it
was still be better than a sports bet! I
find this ridiculous! Speaking about
game fixing, Michael Rosenberg states that “The fear is at once, absolutely
valid and completely misguided. A
point-shaving scandal would be the worst business development that could happen
to any sports league (Rosenberg). Most
people relate game fixing to the 1919 World Series, where the Chicago White Sox
fixed the games for money. However, this
is not 1919 anymore, and players can make more money by playing well than
throwing a game.
The legalization of sports gambling would allow for more monitoring of gambling and easier
recognition of potential rigging of games. As Michael Rosenberg points out, “If we legalize
gambling, we can regulate it. We can monitor it. Experts can track gambling activity to look for
suspicious patterns. Casinos can help law-enforcement authorities, even tip them off, because it will
be in their best interest to do so” (Rosenberg). It should go without saying that tracking gambling
should make it obvious when a few people start making millions on games. This should almost
eliminate the want to fix games and make it obvious when game fixing actually occurs. Lastly, Gary
Payne informs that “Most participants in the sports betting industry would embrace regulation to
prevent adverse effects of gambling” (Payne). I, along with most people would bet legally in order to
insure the safety and legality of our actions, a point that works to advocate the legalization of sports
gambling.
Sports betting must be legalized in order for fans of sports to be able to participate in casual
gambling and for the states and sports leagues to gain revenue while enriching the viewing
experience for fans. By making this change, we can be sure that the $380 billion dollar sports betting
industry has a comfortable, safe, and legal environment to satisfy all parties involved.
Now in addition to what I wrote in the research paper, I would also like to briefly mention the topic of fantasy sports, which are played by roughly 42 million people in the U.S. and Canada alone as estimated by the Fantasy Sports Trade Association. Fantasy sports are a form of sports gambling which are largely accepted in the mainstream media, and are a multi-billion dollar industry. However, in its simplest form fantasy sports are not much different from player bets which are considered illegal. In fantasy sports gambling, people wager money that certain players will perform better than others. Despite how it makes no sense for spread betting or over-under betting to be illegal and gambling on fantasy sports to be legal, websites such as FanDuel have thousands of people betting and winning millions of dollars, and are supported by major sports leagues. It just doesn't seem reasonable for this to be legal, yet betting on games to be illegal, when the forms of betting are so similar. In my opinion, the solution to this incongruity would be to legalize all forms of sports gambling, and many people, including NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, agree with me.
Connor
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Ranking Playoff Formats of Big 5 Sports
The MLB playoffs have started, which means for many people that it's time to start watching baseball. For baseball fans, this is the culmination of six months of regular season games, and a time to see the very best create their legacies. I've picked the Los Angeles Dodgers to win the World Series this year for a number of reasons, one of them being that they have basically a given win in every series they play thanks to a guy named Clayton Kershaw. However, that's not what I want to talk about today.
I'm going to rank the playoffs of all the big 5 team sports in the U.S. (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS) and give my case for what sport I believe has the best playoffs. This will be a combination of the number of teams that make the playoffs, the different match-up lengths such as best-of-7 series and single elimination, and of course, how exciting to follow and fun to watch they are.
Here are my rankings for the best playoff formats.
#5: MLS - Major League Soccer takes the bottom spot in my rankings for a few obvious reasons, the biggest one being that I don't think the MLS should even have playoffs, which is something I mentioned in my problems with the MLS post, found here: http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-6-biggest-problems-with-mls.html. Basically, as I mention in the post, every team plays each other home and away, meaning there is no schedule favoritism, basically negating the need for a playoff system. Additionally, over half of the teams in the league (10 of 19) make the playoffs, which I believe is far too many. I think they should do a championship game between the best place in each conference if the MLS really wants a playoff, or instead have a domestic cup. I still have another major gripe with the MLS' playoff system. The wild card round, conference semifinals, and conference finals are two-leg series, where each team plays home and away. However, the final is only one game. I understand that it creates a big atmosphere surrounding the game, but I just don't like the concept of having a shorter finals. And as for marketing, most people don't even know its happening when it is, so the MLS playoffs can't really be any higher on the list.
#4: MLB - The MLB takes fourth place, and while it could have moved up to third place potentially, it suffers from many flaws. First off is the inconsistency of length in each playoff round. I personally think it's ridiculous that a sport with a 162 game regular season has only a one game wild card, meaning the second wild card team potentially doesn't play a single playoff game at home prior to elimination. This isn't as big a problem in the NFL where the season is 10x shorter, but in baseball I think it's crazy. Then there is a five game divisional round, and seven game league championship and World Series championship series'. I would be in favor of making all series leading up to the World Series five games, and the World Series seven, although I still think it's too short in comparison to the season length. As for the general feel of each game, it doesn't feel too much different than the average game to the casual fan, which is a really bad thing for baseball. These games still suffer from the slow paced, "boring" atmosphere that has destroyed baseball for much of the young market of today. However it is a reasonable system overall that does enough to get the people who like baseball interested.
#3: NFL - In comparison to the regular season, the NFL playoffs usually turn out to be a disappointment for me, with two key exceptions in 2007-08 and 2011-12 (the Giants recent Super Bowls). I didn't think this was possible, but I feel like the NFL's playoffs are over-marketed. Every commercial is focused on the upcoming games, and by kickoff every little detail that may decide the game has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Simply put, every game in the season is exciting as it leads up to seeing who makes the playoffs, but when there is only one game at a time instead of ten, the playoffs can't live up to the hype. The Super Bowl is this multiplied by one hundred. It feels like there is more focus on the halftime show and commercials than the game itself, and many times the game isn't that great (case in point last season). Don't get me wrong: the NFL playoffs are still very enjoyable for football fans, but I just think everything is so overhyped that if a game is anything under terrific it doesn't meet expectations. (I know that was a poor explanation so come playoff time it may warrant it's own post).
#2: NHL - I'll be very honest about this one. I'm not a huge hockey person, and it's tough to really be one when you spend most of your life in California and Texas, so far away from snow. However, every year the NHL playoffs turn me into a hockey fan and make me question why I don't watch the sport more often. It's very fast-paced and exciting, and the emotion on the ice and in the stands is really a sight to see. I think the NHL does a very good job marketing the events, and while the playoffs in both the NHL and NBA are extremely lengthy (16 teams, all best-of-seven series), they do make for some incredibly tense game sevens. Hockey is unpredictable, and perhaps more so than any other sport, capable of producing wild finishes, such as the unforgettable Boston Bruins comeback against the Canadiens this past year. Watching these games gives me a real appreciation for the sport, and for that reason it rightfully takes the number two spot on my list.
#1: NBA - There is simply nothing like basketball playoffs. The rivalries, the storylines, the presentation on TV, I could really go on and on. Every year there are polarizing teams such as the Heat, fan favorites like the Spurs, and combinations of historically great teams continuing their legacies as well as young groups, recently the Pacers, Blazers, and Rockets trying to make names for themselves. Every game counts, and every moment is important in determining who ends up with the title in June. It's long, but it's a thrill ride, and I enjoy every moment of it. In my opinion, the NBA playoffs are unmatched.
Thanks for reading,
Connor
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Filling Out my ESPYs Ballot
Tonight is the 22nd annual ESPY awards, the awards show for excellence in sport. To celebrate, I've decided to take a crack at the ballot and see who I'd pick to win each award.
*Disclaimer: I don't predict every award, because I feel I don't know enough to vote intelligently on all categories, such as athletes with disabilities. I do vote for most categories, however.
Best Male Athlete: This one was a close call between Kevin Durant and Peyton Manning, but in terms of setting records I'll give it to Peyton.
Best Female Athlete: I'm giving this one to Minnesota Lynx guard Maya Moore, the WNBA Finals MVP for all the contributions she made to the best team in the WNBA.
Best Moment: Mariano Rivera's final game is my pick, seeing as the US defeat over Ghana was just a group stage match, and Kevin Durant's MVP speech wasn't even really a sports moment. I imagine next year I'll be choosing Derek Jeter's final game.
Best Team: This choice seemed difficult at first, considering how many champions there are to choose from, but after eliminating the college teams and LA Kings (only third in their division in the regular season), I went with the Seattle Seahawks because of their incredible defense that killed the Broncos in the Super Bowl.
Best Comeback Athlete: Here I was down to Russell Westbrook and Sidney Crosby, based on their season performance rather than one good game. I went with Crosby for leading the NHL in points.
Best Breakthrough Athlete: I decided on Masahiro Tanaka in this category because I feel he has the best chance of al the candidates to become an all-time great someday.
Best Championship Performance: Kawhi Leonard was the easy choice for me for how he completely turned the series around in games 3-5.
Best Game: This one was a no-brainer for me. A NFL playoff game with 89 points and a 28 point comeback? Colts vs. Chiefs gets the vote.
Best Upset: While Mercer beating Duke was nice, Duke is upset prone and the real underdogs of the NCAA tourney were UCONN, winning March Madness as a 7-seed.
Best NFL Player: Same as my best athlete, Peyton.
Best NBA Player: In a close one between LeBron and KD, I decided to pick the reigning MVP, as these awards are just about last season. Kevin Durant's the pick.
Best MLB Player: I find it incredible what Clayton Kershaw's been able to do over the last two years. Best pitcher in the game by far, and I think best player as well. Heck, he's even batting above the Mendoza line at .226 right now!
Best NHL Player: I'll go with the points leader, Sidney Crosby, simple enough.
Best Driver: Jimmie Johnson is making history every season, and now has six titles. I don't think there's a more worthy candidate.
Best Coach: Come on, it just has to be Gregg Popovich after this past NBA playoffs. And best of all, he's coming back next year with Tim Duncan.
Best MLS Player: I mean, seriously, why vote against the MVP. You kind of win that award for a reason! Mike Magee of Chicago Fire gets my pick.
Best International Athlete: I'm going for Rafael Nadal in this one, for winning his thirteenth and fourteenth majors. Sorry Ronaldo, looks like you can't win everything. I even think I put him behind Inbee Park and Sebastian Vettel in this category.
Best WNBA Player: Again I'm taking the MVP. I'm not going to choose against who has been crowned best player already. Candace Parker is my choice.
Best Male Golfer: Adam Scott's got my vote, as he is extremely consistent and always feels within range of winning tournaments, especially majors.
Best Female Golfer: Inbee Park won three of the four majors, is ranked #1 in the world, and won player of the year honors. Tough call, huh?
Best Male Tennis Player: Here's the deal. Novak Djokovic wasn't nominated for best international athlete, although I may have chosen him there. He gets my vote for this award, however, as I was extremely influenced by this year's Wimbledon. (Plus Nadal wasn't too good in that).
Best Female Tennis Player: Who am I to vote against an all-time great with 17 majors? Serena Williams was a dominant player this past year again and deserves this award.
Best Male College Athlete: My pick goes to National Champion and Heisman winner Jameis Winston, lobster thief or not.
Best Female College Athlete: If you watched UConn's women's team, I don't think you can vote against Breanna Stewart, who led a perfect 40-0 team to the title.
Best Play: The Davis FG return in the Alabama - Auburn game is definitely my top play of the year. Just the unlikeliness of this happening and how much it meant for Auburn was enough, but it also knocked out Alabama from title contention, perhaps ending a dynasty.
*Disclaimer: I don't predict every award, because I feel I don't know enough to vote intelligently on all categories, such as athletes with disabilities. I do vote for most categories, however.
Best Male Athlete: This one was a close call between Kevin Durant and Peyton Manning, but in terms of setting records I'll give it to Peyton.
Best Female Athlete: I'm giving this one to Minnesota Lynx guard Maya Moore, the WNBA Finals MVP for all the contributions she made to the best team in the WNBA.
Best Moment: Mariano Rivera's final game is my pick, seeing as the US defeat over Ghana was just a group stage match, and Kevin Durant's MVP speech wasn't even really a sports moment. I imagine next year I'll be choosing Derek Jeter's final game.
Best Team: This choice seemed difficult at first, considering how many champions there are to choose from, but after eliminating the college teams and LA Kings (only third in their division in the regular season), I went with the Seattle Seahawks because of their incredible defense that killed the Broncos in the Super Bowl.
Best Comeback Athlete: Here I was down to Russell Westbrook and Sidney Crosby, based on their season performance rather than one good game. I went with Crosby for leading the NHL in points.
Best Breakthrough Athlete: I decided on Masahiro Tanaka in this category because I feel he has the best chance of al the candidates to become an all-time great someday.
Best Championship Performance: Kawhi Leonard was the easy choice for me for how he completely turned the series around in games 3-5.
Best Game: This one was a no-brainer for me. A NFL playoff game with 89 points and a 28 point comeback? Colts vs. Chiefs gets the vote.
Best Upset: While Mercer beating Duke was nice, Duke is upset prone and the real underdogs of the NCAA tourney were UCONN, winning March Madness as a 7-seed.
Best NFL Player: Same as my best athlete, Peyton.
Best NBA Player: In a close one between LeBron and KD, I decided to pick the reigning MVP, as these awards are just about last season. Kevin Durant's the pick.
Best MLB Player: I find it incredible what Clayton Kershaw's been able to do over the last two years. Best pitcher in the game by far, and I think best player as well. Heck, he's even batting above the Mendoza line at .226 right now!
Best NHL Player: I'll go with the points leader, Sidney Crosby, simple enough.
Best Driver: Jimmie Johnson is making history every season, and now has six titles. I don't think there's a more worthy candidate.
Best Coach: Come on, it just has to be Gregg Popovich after this past NBA playoffs. And best of all, he's coming back next year with Tim Duncan.
Best MLS Player: I mean, seriously, why vote against the MVP. You kind of win that award for a reason! Mike Magee of Chicago Fire gets my pick.
Best International Athlete: I'm going for Rafael Nadal in this one, for winning his thirteenth and fourteenth majors. Sorry Ronaldo, looks like you can't win everything. I even think I put him behind Inbee Park and Sebastian Vettel in this category.
Best WNBA Player: Again I'm taking the MVP. I'm not going to choose against who has been crowned best player already. Candace Parker is my choice.
Best Male Golfer: Adam Scott's got my vote, as he is extremely consistent and always feels within range of winning tournaments, especially majors.
Best Female Golfer: Inbee Park won three of the four majors, is ranked #1 in the world, and won player of the year honors. Tough call, huh?
Best Male Tennis Player: Here's the deal. Novak Djokovic wasn't nominated for best international athlete, although I may have chosen him there. He gets my vote for this award, however, as I was extremely influenced by this year's Wimbledon. (Plus Nadal wasn't too good in that).
Best Female Tennis Player: Who am I to vote against an all-time great with 17 majors? Serena Williams was a dominant player this past year again and deserves this award.
Best Male College Athlete: My pick goes to National Champion and Heisman winner Jameis Winston, lobster thief or not.
Best Female College Athlete: If you watched UConn's women's team, I don't think you can vote against Breanna Stewart, who led a perfect 40-0 team to the title.
Best Play: The Davis FG return in the Alabama - Auburn game is definitely my top play of the year. Just the unlikeliness of this happening and how much it meant for Auburn was enough, but it also knocked out Alabama from title contention, perhaps ending a dynasty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)